Claire Mallinson presents at the public hearings. Full transcript available.
Public hearings blog
Live updates from our team at the public hearings at Parliament House, Canberra.
09:17am Monday 6 July: Back at headquarters
So the Human Rights Act team are now back in our offices after last week’s public hearings.
Claire Mallinson, National Director of Amnesty International Australia, presented to the hearings in the final session of Friday afternoon - Developing a culture of Human Rights: education, public awareness and active citizenship. The session was chaired by Mary Kostakidis (Member, National Human Rights Consultation Committee).
Other speakers in this session included: Mr Simon Sheikh (National Director, Getup!); Brigadier (Retired) Jim Wallace AM (Managing Director, Australian Christian Lobby); Mr Graeme Innes AM (Human Rights Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission); Ms Cecilia Riebl (Solicitor, Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices Victoria); Mr Phil Lynch (Director, Human Rights Legal Resource Centre), and; Ms Paula Gerber (Deputy Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law).
Watch Claire's speech in the video on the right or read the full transcript.
Now that the hearings are over, the National Human Rights Consultation Committee will be working on preparing their report, which is due to be given to the Attorney General on 31 August (although with the number of submissions they have received it wouldn’t be at all surprising if they requested an extension!). You can check out the terms of reference that the committee will be reporting on.
While this is happening, here at Amnesty the Human Rights Act team will be working on plans for the next stage of our campaign to get a human rights act for Australia!
Be sure to keep in touch with this campaign and our other human rights work with our regular campaign emails.
12:32pm Friday 3 July: Is scrutiny enough?
Robin speaks with Professor George Williams in the Great Hall on the first day of the public hearings
by Robin Banks, Chief Executive Officer, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
The just-finished session on the potential of parliamentary scrutiny committees to improve the promotion and protection of human rights was an interesting chance to hear how former politicians, participants in the political system and academics see the scrutiny processes working. All were far more positive in their assessment of their effectiveness than the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) was in its submission to the inquiry, in which it considered the effectiveness of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee.
I am struck by how often those who are relatively close to or involved in the process lose perspective on how those processes look to those outside the process and people without power or voice. While there were some useful suggestions about how these processes could be improved, they still (as Harry Evans indicated) rely on the goodwill of the parliamentary process, and are less effective when a party holds power in both houses of parliament.
I wonder how many people in the broad Australian community have ever heard of the scrutiny committees, and I wonder how they would respond if they heard that the NSW Legislation Review Committee's report on the recent so-called "anti-Biker legislation"1 was not available until more than a month after the Bill was tabled, debated and passed. Would they consider that an effective input to the parliamentary process? I think not.
The other question I am left with - both from this session and from the previous session when Senator George Brandis suggested there could be a Human Rights Committee of Parliament - is:
If people involved in these processes and with the capacity to bring about change have these ideas about changes to these already existing processes, why haven't any of these changes happened yet?
I am left with the feeling that the reason they haven't happened is that there is no imperative to fully consider the human rights impacts of Bills and Acts. Without the establishment of a human rights law with a clear articulation of rights that are protected and promoted, it is difficult to see that imperative arising.
Robin Banks
CEO, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
1 I note that Nick Cowdery QC quite correctly observed that this legislation goes much further than simply dealing with bikers. Indeed, it doesn't mention bikers at all but rather deals with association with members of 'criminal organisations'. Read more on this legislation.
8:38am Friday 3 July: Beginning of the end of the hearings
It's the start of day three. Louise (Amnesty Government Relations Team) and I are feeling (and probably looking) a bit like we've been in the Great Hall of Parliament House for weeks. Claire Mallinson, our National Director, is presenting to the hearings this afternoon and will be including some of the comments we got from the over 10,000 submissions people like you made through us to the Consultation Committee.
Day three is focusing on how we could better protect rights and promote responsibilities in Australia - looking at parliamentary committees and scruntiny, public service, resources and education, active citizenship and a culture of human rights.
Hope you are enjoying our updates - we'll keep you posted over the day.
4:35pm Thursday 2 July - The price of rights?
by Lucy, Human Rights Act for Australia campaign, Amnesty International Australia blog
Throughout the hearings, several speakers have questioned whether Australia can afford to have a Human Rights Act, due to the financial costs of implementing human rights protections. Well yesterday I asked some of the speakers about the costs of NOT having these protections in Australia.
The speakers answered me by referring to the asylum seekers imprisoned for years in detention centres; to the indigenous Australians who have died in custody; to the homeless who lack the basic necessities required to live, let alone live with dignity; to those with mental health problems who have suffered gratuitous limitations to their privacy and autonomy. It seems to me that these costs - the loss of life, liberty and human dignity - far outweigh any financial costs associated with implementing human rights protections.
Can we afford to have a Human Rights Act? My answer would be that we can’t afford NOT to!
3:37pm Thursday 2 July - Democracy in progress
by Danie, Human Rights Act for Australia campaign, Amnesty International Australia
What I have found most interesting so far is the tension that arises from the separation of powers between the Parliamentary and Judiciary branch should a Human Rights Act, Charter or Constitutional Bill be introduced.
While the arguments against a Human Rights Act, Charter or Bill are valid, in terms of the philosophical debate that surrounds "rights" being a moral one (and one that should be debated in the public realm and in policy, not in the court rooms), I still find the arguments for a Human Rights Act or Charter to be preeminent. While the interpretive powers of the courts can be called into question, governments should be held accountable and forced to assess how policy and legislation they wish to introduce will affect wider society, rather than be influenced by the politics of day and, ultimately, how many votes this may afford them.
Foremost however, being part of this public hearing and consultation gives me confidence in the democracy machine in Australia. The premise and idea of the consultation and the public hearing is democracy in process. Observing it in action reminds me that beyond any cynicism I have towards bureaucracy and politics, Australia’s democracy is strong. Whatever the outcome is from this consultation, whether a Charter or Act is introduced to Australia, there will undoubtedly be change regardless.
So while this thought - that democracy remains strong in our country - is comforting, it does not mean that we must be complacent; because it is only through vigilance that we can continue to progress.
2:54pm Thursday 2 July - "Solutions please!"
by Andrew Witheford, Government Relations Manager
The "Great Debate" (see Jenny's blog post directly below) was interesting for me because of the passionate support for stronger human rights protection articulated by two members of the side that opposed a Human Rights Act.
In opposing such an act of parliament they talked passionately and no doubt sincerely about how there was a great need to improve observance of human rights through improving the culture of human rights in society. But in building their complex arguments as to why they opposed an Act, they failed to provide any model that improved upon the status quo!
In my view they failed the "constructive criticism test"!
1:11pm Thursday 2 July - The Great Debate
by Jenny Leong, Campaign Coordinator
Following on from my observations this morning (see below) that the advocates for a Human Rights Act seem to be more connected with everyday people than those that are against it, here are some of my thoughts on the current debate happening now in the Great Hall in Parliament House in front of the human rights public hearings.
Those involved in the debate are:
Session Chair
Father Frank Brennan
Chair, National Human Rights Consultation Committee
Speakers against a Charter
Professor Greg Craven
Vice-Chancellor
Australian Catholic University
Professor Adrienne Stone
Professor, Faculty of Law
University of Melbourne
Professor Helen Irving
Professor, Faculty of Law
Sydney University
Speakers for a Charter
Ms Lisa Baker MLA
Former member
WA Human Rights Consultation Committee
Member for Marylands
The Hon Catherine Branson QC
President, Australian Human Rights Commission
Mr Edward Santow
Director, Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law
Okay, everyone seems to support human rights - dignity, equality, freedom and respect - so what’s the problem?
The debate seems to be about with whom the power should lie - politicians or judges - or at least that’s what the opponents are arguing. The debate should actually be about the ability of an Act or Charter or bill to better protect rights. It's about what other countries are doing to protect rights and what we could/shouldn’t do (depending on what side of debate you are on).
These debates, these discussions, these musings from some key thinkers in human rights protection and law are important and valuable. However, it seems that those arguing against an act are unable to deal with the confronting examples being put up by those in favour of a Charter, for example the cases of Mr Ward, Cornelia Rau and children in detention.
The opponents of a Charter are getting lost in their opposition to the concept, and are ignoring the fact that the people who actually need better rights protection would be better serviced with the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary - the three arms of government - all sharing in the responsibility of protecting and promoting their rights.
Some questions I would like to ask at the end of the debate - but that I will probably be unable to ask given the question time is very limited and given I have already been able to ask one to Bob Carr and Susan Ryan today - are:
- A charter of rights might not be a panacea to prevent all rights protection but surely it is an improvement?
- How do people who are ‘voiceless’ in our community participate in parliamentary democracy without being afforded their rights to education, social security and housing engage with active voting and lobbying?
- Why does everyone keep making distinctions between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights - aren’t all of these rights included in the Declaration of Human Rights and also universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated?
I have been putting my hand up in question time with no success. But luckily we have a whole Amnesty team down here and Lucy (an intern working with us on the Human Rights Act campaign) got to ask one.
PS - the prize for the best comment/question of the day (that is a question that manages to make a great point in the short time allocated for asking a question) goes to Phil Lynch from the Human Rights Law Resource Centre.
PPS - Over lunch I had a chat with Frank Brennan, Chair of the Consultation Committee, and asked him about the video of UK experts that I wrote about in my blog below from this morning. The good news is that the Committee is going to make it publicly available and is looking into getting it online. We'll provide a link to it from here when it goes live.
9:16am Thursday 2 July - A Commonwealth Charter - heated debate
by Jenny Leong, Campaign Coordinator
So we're back in the Great Hall, watching a video from UK Experts talking about the UK Human Rights Act there. The video was produced by the Consultation Committee to allow input from the UK experience to the process. A great idea, but would have been better if they had appeared by video link up so we could have had a bit of debate and some questions from the audience. (I'll ask in the break if we can get the recording put online so that you can all see it too).
There are less empty chairs in the hall today, and I am joined by a great team of Amnesty folks who are madly scribbling notes, taking photos, collecting video footage and writing blogs so that we can keep you connected with what is happening here in Canberra. After all it is your rights that are up for discussion, so it is important you know what’s going on!
The rest of the day will focus on what difference a Commonwealth charter of human rights would make. It should be pretty heated. As you would have seen from recent media coverage on the human rights consultation there are strong advocates for a charter and high profile individuals who are very against one.
Interestingly, a debate this morning between Susan Ryan (Chair of the Australian Human Rights Group - of which Amnesty is a member) and Bob Carr (former NSW Premier) demonstrated the difference between the "fors" and "againsts" - the fors (including Susan) are connected with and represent many different organisations and people in the community, while the againsts (like Bob Carr) are generally best known for their personal high-profiles. I'll leave that thought with you and blog more after I have heard their debate.
5:27pm Wednesday 1 July - Hot Button Issues, goosebumps and a positive vibe
Question time
by Jenny Leong, Campaign Coordinator
So, the first day has come to an end.
The afternoon sessions included hot button issues (right to die, right to life, same-sex marriage and religious freedom), presentations from the human rights commissioners in ACT, VIC and SA and a presentation on the rights of children and young people.
Each speaker gets seven minutes to present, with a bell at 1 minute for a warning. Things move fast. Massive segments of the community, complex issues of law, intricate details and very touching, personal stories are squeezed into a few key points, some hard-hitting stats, or some broad principles. And yet, somehow, the day seemed to capture the issues. My mind is filled with stories of people who have slipped through the cracks, people who have missed out on the advantages and privledges that the majority are afforded, and people who face challenges in exercising their dignity, rights and freedoms that most of us will never experience.
However, perhaps the most powerful feeling from the day - something which I shared with Mary Kostakidis as we were leaving the Great Hall - was the overwhelming positive vibe from the people who presented.
At one point in the day I had goosebumps because I realised that the majority of people who spoke took the idea of an overarching, national mechanism for human rights protection in this country as a given; their contributions came around the detail, around the complexities, the intricacies, the personal impacts etc. But they were all (or almost all) talking about a Charter, an Act or a Bill of Human Rights.
A Human Rights Act has the potential to make Australia a country that affords all of the people on this land with dignity, respect and rights - and this is something that people that presented today seemed to clearly support and understand. At least for today. Tomorrow brings the focus on a Federal Charter or Act - the politicians, the academics and the lawyers enter the arena.
Stay tuned to our tweets at the Amnesty International twitter stream (or twitter search #rightsforoz_) for a blow by blow account. Also, don't forget to check out our youtube channel for comments by key speakers.
12:46pm Wednesday 1 July - Morning sessions (or 'My Happiness' - the aim of human rights?)
Crisp Canberra weather, first morning of the hearings
by Jenny Leong, Campaign Coordinator
The morning started, as it should, with a welcome to country from Agnis O’Shea - Parliament House is located on the land of the Ngunnawal people. (well it actually started with us not being able to enter the building, but that's another story...)
Chair of the committee Frank Brennan then introduced the public hearings, including an outline of the terms of reference and the other committee members.
The first session, Being at Home in Contemporary Australia, was the start to the day which Frank Brennan described as focusing on the human face of dignity, rights and respect. The speakers included Warren Mundine (replacing Olga Havnen), Auwa Benny Hodges, Waleed Aly, and Corey Irlam. After they presented we asked them all to record a short clip for you (follow the links to see these clips on youtube - we will try to do this after every session for you so you can get a sense of what people are saying).
The Second session, An overview of those who miss out and fall through the cracks of a fair go for all, focused mainly on the direct provision of services to people - the ACT Council of Social Service, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the National Association of Community Legal Centres. Stuart Rees from the Sydney Peace Foundation also spoke as part of this panel.
Following this there were questions from the National Human Rights Committee to the panel - this was a great chance to hear what the panel is thinking about in relation to human rights protection. Questions covered the following areas:
- the cost of protecting or not protecting rights
- the relationship between individual rights and our sense of community
- why we need a charter rather than individual pieces of legislation
- dealing with the federal and state responsibilities for economic and social issues
- compensation and damages in relation to service delivery
Mary Kostakidis, National Human Rights Consutlation Committee member, summed up the session by pointing out that it is important for the imagination of the majority to be engaged with human rights issues of the minority.
If you have a question you want us to ask in the question sessions, let us know by posting a comment at the bottom of this page - we were able to ask a question about the rights of people with mental illness in response to Virgina’s comment to our first blog.
PS: I've been writing this over lunch to the sound of My Island Home (Christine Anu) and My Happiness (Powderfnger) playing over the sound system in the Great Hall - I wonder who chose the soundtrack?
7:49am Wednesday 1 July - Breakfast
The breakfast table
by Jenny Leong, Campaign Coordinator
Once I finish my coffee and breakfast I will be heading off to the first session of the first day of the National Human Rights Consultation public hearings in the Great Hall of Parliament House.
For those who remember the Attorney General making the announcement about the human rights consultation on the 60th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights last year, the public hearing over the next three days are the culmination of this - and as someone who is pretty passionate about human rights (probably quite an understatement), I am very excited.
Excited because this consultation process marked a significant change in the Australian Government’s focus on human rights - a step in the right direction for ensuring the better protection and promotion of human rights in this country.
Excited because with me (and the small team of Amnesty folks who are down here with me - more on them later today) we carry the support of over 10,000 individual submissions from Amnesty supporters and individuals in the community who share our passion and commitment to human rights.
And I guess, I am excited because over the next three days some amazingly committed people, many with great minds, some with huge hearts, will spend their energy to working out how we can better protect and promote human rights in this country. Check out the full program of speakers here [link to hearings agenda] and let me know if you are particularly interested in hearing about what specific people say.
Amnesty International, and so many of you, recognise that the best available way to protect our human rights in this country is through the introduction of a human rights act. This community consultation process was a crucial step in realising this. Hopefully the public hearings are the next positive step to realising this aim.
PS - Remember you can follow us on twitter @AmnestyOz (all tweets on this subject are tagged #rightsforoz) for more regular updates, and also tweet us questions you want asked of presenters!
Comments
Angela Ketas | Posted on 3 July 2009, 09:58AM | Report comment
Will the NHRC include a provision pursuant to UN Charter, 1948, Article 26, Pt 3 which states “.. protects the freedom of parents to choose the education of their choice”?
I am concerned that the National Curririculum which all schools were forced to sign up to under threat of not receiving Commonwealth funding, may undermine the education which I have chosen for my children, namely Steiner.
Will the NHRC protect my rights in accordance with Atricle 26?
James | Posted on 2 July 2009, 06:07PM | Report comment
Nick,
Your feedback on Amnesty International Australia’s work and suggestions for campaign direction are valid and welcome.
Regarding censorship of comments made on this page however, you are unequivocally wrong. There have been no comments deleted from this thread, and our system would only have auto-censored if the comment included swearing or hate-language, which I assume it wouldn’t have. I am a website administrator and I can guarantee this. Further allegations of censorship in this case won’t be responded to.
You’re welcome to continue to post your thoughts on Amnesty’s work, and contribute any questions you’d like to see us try to ask in the final day of the public hearings.
Nick Bowshell | Posted on 2 July 2009, 05:27PM | Report comment
James,
My friend made her comment on THIS page and was highly critical of your organisation and so am I !
Did it cost Amnesty so much $$$ to pose 1 token question to this forum on the issue of human rights and the ‘mentally ill’? Would it cost Amnesty Australia so much $$$ to make it a Campaign Issue as they have already done in Amnesty’s Irish branch ?
Why does Virginia (Comment 4) have to quote media to your organisation on this issue? Your organisation should be generating media on this issue! You obviously haven’t done research and instead continue to ignore this “quiet” human rights disater by neglecting to give it ANY attention, let alone sustained attention. There are reasons it’s so “quiet”: partly because Amnesty Australia doesn’t give it a voice! Ask Amnesty Ireland for some direction: your organisation is clearly out of touch. It might be worthwhile to stop following every issue Amnesty U.K. deems relevant to the rest of the world as well.
James | Posted on 2 July 2009, 02:41PM | Report comment
Nick, if you’re referring to comments made by flume7, those were not posted on this page - she posted them on the youtube video page at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABRJTiXe5Rs&feature=channel_page.
Your assumption that Amnesty International Australia is anti-censorship is correct. We would welcome those comments on this page if they were made here.
James | Posted on 2 July 2009, 02:35PM | Report comment
Nick, looking into this now.
Jenny Leong (in Camberra) | Posted on 2 July 2009, 02:32PM | Report comment
Hi Nick, the question time is about 10 minutes twice a day - so far I have been able to ask two questions, one of them was prompted by the comment left by Virginia who said: “Please ask about the human rights for the mantally ill” - the question I put took this suggestion and the input we have had from many other supporters of Amnesty in relation to the rights of people with mental illness. The work of Amnesty in Ireland on Human Rights has been really amazing. Our campaign for a human rights act allows Amnesty in Australia to focus on these rights issues, along with many others, in our own country.
Nick Bowshell | Posted on 2 July 2009, 02:31AM | Report comment
My friend left a valid comment on this page asking why Amnesty Australia isn’t campaigning in earnest against the abuse of the those in psychiatric hospitals unlike Amnesty Internatonal Ireland. She had a fair point as you don’t take this issue seriously and posing 1 question is not the same as making it a Campaign Issue. You censored her comment! I thought Amnesty was anti-censorship!
John Bartholomew | Posted on 2 July 2009, 12:43AM | Report comment
Does the Rudd government have any intention of dismantling the machinery of state terrorism set up by the previous regime under its numerous acts of terrorist legislation? It seems to me that if Australia is to be involved in the so called War on Terror, it would be useful for citizens to have a clear indication of whether our governments, state and federal, are fighting for or against terrorism. So far, all the evidence suggests that Australian politicians favour securing their jobs by transforming law enforcement agencies into terrorist networks that can be used to smash democracy.
Ravi Christo | Posted on 2 July 2009, 12:15AM | Report comment
Can the government look into the case of supposedly 50 Indian students who died in 2008-2009 due to unknown reasons. Their families would want to know what was thier cause and any medical reasons any. Can the government ensure there is a system to ensure that henceforth such deaths will be fully examined.
Many families send their sons and daughters to study here and they would want to ensure that they are safe any deaths or incidents are investigated thoroughly.
Swan Valley Nyungah Community | Posted on 1 July 2009, 09:53PM | Report comment
1. We Traditional Owners of Australia ask if a Human Rights Act will embody the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples passed on 13 September 2007 by 143 Nations signed by Australia this year?
2. Will a Human Rights Act recognise the still unlawful occupation of Australia by Australian/State Governments? (despite Keating’s patch-up Australia Act) Will it recognise us the Owners?
3. Will a Human Rights Act let us freely enjoy our Religion and Sacred Places, Beliefs and Culture in the Land for the next 7 Generations? and no interference by mining,development or dollars?
4. Will a Human Rights Act allow us to pass on our languages through Language Nests (Kohanga Reo) so our little children can learn their own languages at the Mother’s Breast?
We support a Human Rights Act for this Our Land if our so-far-unrecognised and unprotected Rights as the Original Land Owners, are set down and protected in this proposed Act.
Swan Valley Nyungahs of Western Australia.
Anne Bell | Posted on 1 July 2009, 06:58PM | Report comment
By what date is it proposed that there will be no homeless people on Australia’s streets? What is being planned to achieve this? After food, sure a shelter of one’s own is the next basic human right, yet many Australians do not possess this.
James | Posted on 1 July 2009, 05:37PM | Report comment
Hi Virginia, please find video of the response to our question about the impact of a Human Rights Act on the mentally ill at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABRJTiXe5Rs.
Thanks to everyone submitting their questions, participating and following this process. We’re having a great time providing updates via twitter, youtube and blogs and will be addressing as many questions as possible during the allotted question time at the hearings!
Jenny Leong (in Camberra) | Posted on 1 July 2009, 05:27PM | Report comment
Great point Ken! Thanks to everyone else to for comments - not sure if there is another Q&A for today, but will collect them for some questioning tomorrow.
Ken Barrett | Posted on 1 July 2009, 03:55PM | Report comment
Why couldn’t the UDHR be given force in Australian Law?
Hamish | Posted on 1 July 2009, 03:37PM | Report comment
The last government passed many laws that concerned me greatly, under the guise of “war on terror”. One of my concerns is the lack of sunset clauses in legislation. Subsequent governments, being only human and fallible, will find it easier to preserve the status quo rather than try and get the numbers to repeal legislation, especially if there is a heavy legislative load, or, as we have now, a government and opposition more concerned with points scoring than good policy and legislation. With the passing of any legislation which is controversial from a democratic/rights/freedom point of view the default should be for the legislation to lapse after say 5 or 10 years, and require an active push for a new “yes” vote to keep it on the statute, rather than the other way round.
RDale | Posted on 1 July 2009, 02:52PM | Report comment
very concerned that Fed Govt reneged on promise to manage refugee detention centres by Public sector.Aust Protective Service had tendered in years past; why can’t they do it? Rudd Govt has had long enough to cancel the tender process before awarding today to another private co. Public scrutiny is essential to prevent bullying & abuse of inmates. Better to close centres & assess refugees in the community
Cassie | Posted on 1 July 2009, 01:09PM | Report comment
I would like to see an impartial human rights evaluation of Australia’s child protection systems. I am particularly concerned with the laws in two states that permit the forced detention of young people on protective orders in locked secure facilities. Whilst this occurs only when a young person is assessed at risk – typically judged on drug using behaviours or because they run away from substandard residential houses – this should not permit imprisonment without fair process and criminal charge. Issues of adequate housing whilst in care and after care are also alarming.
Jenny Leong | Posted on 1 July 2009, 12:53PM | Report comment
Just asked a question of the panel about rights of people with mental illness - thanks Virginia - we will post a clip with the question and answer soon.
Virginia Stewart | Posted on 1 July 2009, 11:38AM | Report comment
Please ask about the human rights for the mantally ill. Patients in Australia has less rights to a fair hearing than prisoners. If a family members reports them as mentally ill, they can be held against their will for a week or so (each state varies) before they appear before a tribunal. And no laywer or representative can counter the testimony of a psychiatrist, leaving a person at the will of a doctor to decide their fate. It is harrowing and extremely upsetting and they are the quietly abused sector of our society. We need proper representation for the mentally ill with government supported legal hearings so that those who do not want severe treatment such as ECT can defend their rights, without emptying their family’s bank account by being forced to go to the Supreme Court. The Australian newspaper covered an excellent front page story on these abuses a few weeks ago.
AngelaMunro | Posted on 1 July 2009, 11:37AM | Report comment
Would a HR ACT enable the unravelling of the gerrymander in the Melbourne City Council, persisting despite the Victorian Charter?